NEW STATESMAN: HUGO CHAVEZ by Howard

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

NEW STATESMAN: HUGO CHAVEZ

POSTED BY: HOWARD
UPDATED: Friday, November 4, 2005 17:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4382
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, October 9, 2005 3:17 AM

A WORD ABOUT THE RESPONSES TO THIS POST: It is very interesting how certain persons are only capable of responding to such an intelligent and very well informed article (written by a well regarded journalist and commentator) with insults of a personal nature against me (not even against the author but against me for posting it). They have no capacity for civil discourse.

Here is an excellent article about Hugo Chavez from the magazine NEW STATESMAN:

Hugo Chavez - showing the US who's master
Hugh O'Shaughnessy
Monday 10th October 2005

Venezuela's president is rarely seen by foreigners for what he is: one of the world's most popular and democratic politicians. His strength may yet bring his downfall. By Hugh O'Shaughnessy in Caracas

''Oh," said an acquaintance in a rather surprised voice, "so you take a reasonably favourable view of Hugo Chavez." "Well, yes," I stammered, "he was elected to office fairly, he's popular and he's trying to reform a once-moribund society."

A few days earlier, I had been in an ante-room at the square, white Miraflores Palace in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas. I was chatting with one of President Chavez's secretaries, who was abruptly called away. "Back soon," he said. I knew what that meant and, after an hour or two chatting to the staff, I left. Would I never see the man of mixed race who was so despised by the whites and near-whites of Venezuela, but who was making so many tongues wag all over the western hemisphere?

I needn't have worried: the full Chavez experience was around the corner. He had summoned a meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS), a generator of hot air based in Washington, DC. He wanted this glove puppet of the United States to create a social charter for the hemisphere and start doing something about its startling inequalities. So, the following day we trooped over to the tropical splendour of the Hilton hotel to watch and hear a powerful personality in full flow. The ideas and plans tumbled out like sparks off a grinding wheel - the people of Latin America given the right to eat as well as vote; cheap oil for the poor of the US; free literacy classes and free eyecare for everyone in the western hemisphere; an international referendum on US sanctions against Cuba; the replacement of the OAS by something that would reflect Latin rather than US interests . . .

Watching him perform, one realised he was not only younger, but more vigorous, concrete and coherent than his friend and mentor Fidel Castro. The Cuban leader (whom I have met sev-eral times) is, after all, in his twilight years. Next day, there was Chavez on IAlo, Presidente!, his regular Sunday television show. Then he reappeared to give Jesse Jackson a medal. On each occasion the ideas poured out, jostling each other for attention.

Perhaps it's because Hugo Chavez will never use one word when a thousand will do and his rhetoric is not very British; perhaps it's because he was a paratroop colonel and likes to wear a plum-coloured beret; perhaps it's because he takes a dim view of the US not shared by some European bien-pensants; perhaps it is merely because he is a practitioner in the deeply devalued discipline of Latin American politics. For whatever reason, foreigners rarely see Chavez for what he is: one of the most popular and powerful political figures in the western hemisphere, seeking to build a basic welfare state on democratic foundations. He won 56 per cent of the vote in the 1998 multi-party presidential elections; then the new constitution he proposed was approved in December 1999 by 72 per cent of the vote; then he won a new six-year mandate in 2000 with 59 per cent; then he won a referendum last year, again with 59 per cent. Now he faces multi-party elections in December 2006.

Since he was first elected, Chavez has kept the voters' loyalty and begun forcing through reforms that economists in European governments, at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund merely write about, but never expect to see put into practice. He can afford to do it. With oil at $70 a barrel and reserves possibly bigger than Saudi Arabia's, Venezuela is swimming in money, and that has given the president the option of tackling a scandal of concentrated wealth amid widespread indigence.

Despite many decades of fat oil earnings, a series of corrupt but ostensibly democratic governments had left well over half of Venezuela's 25 million citizens in poverty. Chavez has attacked this mess frontally in assaults that he calls "missions". Mision Barrio Adentro, for instance, the scheme to get medical help to slum-dwellers, has mobilised 20,000 Cuban doctors, dentists and auxiliary staff whose services are paid for by Venezuela's cut-price oil sales to Cuba. In Caracas, and in towns and villages previously without permanent doctors or health services, the Cubans have built their modulos, small octagonal brick structures with an office on the ground floor and a cramped flat on the first floor. There, they have dispensed Cuban drugs and practised the preventive medicine that Venezuelan doctors, who rarely passed by, refused to consider.

"There was no money in preventive medicine, so Venezuelan doctors didn't do it," says Edgar of the health workers' union. Meanwhile, under Operation Miracle, thousands have been flown to Cuba for free eye operations.

Soon, Chavez promises, Mision Robinson, a reading and basic numeracy scheme, will herald the end of illiteracy in Venezuela. Mision Ribas gives secondary-school drop-outs a second chance with a two-year course and a small bursary. Twelve million poorer Venezuelans have access to cheap or free food through Mision Mercal. It's all part, he says, of "21st-century socialism".

Unlike Castro, Chavez has the money to establish real education, health and welfare, and not just for Venezuelans; he can afford to do much of the same abroad. Before long, Operation Miracle will be offering eye treatment to 600,000 patients a year throughout the western hemisphere for ten years, with the aim of saving the sight of six million people at no cost to them. Places have been reserved for 150,000 US citizens per year.

It is no surprise that Chavez challenges the ideas of the White House and US Department of State, and is detested by those who fear his reforms. There have already been determined domestic attempts to overthrow him, most notably in April 2002. The cock-eyed scheme involved the rather dim head of Fedecamaras, Venezuela's equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry, claiming to restore democracy and then closing Congress, dissolving the Supreme Court and sacking the elected provincial governors and mayors. The aspiring dictator, Pedro Carmona Estanga, had the backing of most of the press and television networks, whose biased anti-Chavez coverage made Rupert Murdoch's hard-right Fox News look like BBC Radio 3. Happily, the coup failed after 48 hours. The plotters were supremely incompetent, an inexpert US ambassador who for weeks had been in on the plot hesitated, and the crowds on the streets demanded an end to the unlawful detention of the man Venezuelans had freely chosen to lead them.

With the opposition unable to demonstrate any serious flaws in the voting procedures, Chavez's legitimacy is unassailable. Latinbarometro, a reliable public opinion survey of the region, found that Venezuela is the country where "the fewest people believe that the country is being governed for the few, and where the most believe that it is governed for the good of the people". The president has given voters hope, managing simultaneously to push down infant mortality and raise life expectancy.

The nationalists in the US have serious reason to be nervous and trigger-happy, as they used to be with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Chavez hopes that his Bolivarian revolution will rekindle the desire for Latin American unity expressed by the Venezuelan hero Simon BolIvar two centuries ago, which could threaten the US mastery over the western hemisphere that Washington has sought to maintain for 150 years. Precautions are being taken in Venezuela. Despite protests from the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, Spain and Russia are selling Chavez guns and ships, the armed forces are being put on a higher state of alert, and a few hundred office workers have been given training as the pioneer members of a new Dad's Army that should ultimately be capable of backing up the regulars all over the country.

But Chavez, one feels, is not relying on his forces to defeat his opponents at home and abroad. The largesse with cut-price oil and the ambitious international aid programmes should bring support from other governments - or at least their electorates - if new attempts were made to topple him. Yet is Chavez doing enough to fight the great Venezuelan tradition of corruption? Is he keeping power too closely concentrated in the hands of his kitchen cabinet? Why isn't there a better party structure? Worries persist.

The other day, for instance, we all came out of the vast Teresa Carreno Theatre into the warm evening air in sombre mood. It had been the inauguration of the Three Continents Festival of Documentaries, and we had been watching Patricio Guzman's powerful film about Salvador Allende and the part the US played in his overthrow. "Has what we've just seen about Chile in 1973 and Allende got any relevance to Venezuela in 2005 and your President Hugo Chavez?" I asked people at random. They looked at me as if I were stupid. "Claro - of course. That's exactly what Bush is trying to do now," they replied unfailingly.

The US government has not disavowed Pastor Marion "Pat" Robertson, the millionaire politician and businessman who in August called for the assassination of Chavez. The Venezuelan's ideas and strategies are bold and long overdue, but he is vulnerable. Should he not think harder about how they will be implemented if he disappears before his time is due?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 15, 2005 1:41 PM

EYETOOTH

Thanks for the hagiographic SPAM, asshole. This is half a step away from the Jew-counterbait thread in troll country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 15, 2005 3:18 PM

LOGGERHEAD

I am from Venezuela.

You are an idiot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 15, 2005 3:46 PM

EYETOOTH

Your post is ambiguous to whom you're referring, meaning that either you're a Chavez fanboi or hater. Actually living under his regime, you've presumably seen the effects of him stripping the government of accountability, creating paralell institutions under his direct control, and generally preparing the country to be raped in the derierre once oil prices drop. Depending on whether you're one or the other you see these developments in a good or bad light.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 15, 2005 3:54 PM

HOWARD

What you describe would be quite accurate if
one was talking about the Bush Administration
and its corporate cronies because in fact
that is what they are doing to the USA.
That is the portion of the USA that belongs
to ordinary people. Stripping it for the rich
as in what is going down in New Orleans right
now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 15, 2005 4:10 PM

EYETOOTH

That's one stuuuupid response. And you're one ineffective troll.

Now, please, someone send this guy's threads where they belong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 15, 2005 4:14 PM

HOWARD

It is only "STUPID" to you because
of your vast ignorance and could not care
less disregard for the truth and evidence.

You presume that if you do not know something
it is therefore not happening.

How stupid is that!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 15, 2005 4:39 PM

EYETOOTH

No. It's "STUUUUUPID" because...

...c'mon, you can guess...

...George Bush and his administration's shenanegans weren't the topic at hand. At all.

This is my last swipe at the dead horse: you are a retard, or troll, or (most likely) both. Move along.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:44 AM

LOGGERHEAD

Quote:
Originally posted by eyetooth:
Your post is ambiguous to whom you're referring

Sorry, eyetooth. You're right, it was ambiguous. I should have been clearer.

Howard is an idiot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 4:47 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by loggerhead:
Quote:
Originally posted by eyetooth:
Your post is ambiguous to whom you're referring

Sorry, eyetooth. You're right, it was ambiguous. I should have been clearer.

Howard is an idiot.

Why? If he is, let him have it logically and with some thought out points (which I did the other day in his Israel thread, find it and have a look if you want - look for bold titles, that's Howard's schtick). You lived there, and you disagree, you should have several good reasons. This is a more polite forum, where we talk to each other, not Fark or SomethingAwful, where it's one line attacks for wit (contrary to Gregg.'s and my spat the other day over James Bond, I was in a snit that day anyway, and so was he I think).

If you are calling someone an idiot, be prepared to back it up. If not, the troll? It's you.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 5:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually, Eyetooth is an idiot and Loggerhead follows close behind. (Sorry guys, but Eyetooth started this and Loggerhead jumped on the bandwagon.)

The subject of the thread is whatever the initiating person wants it to be. Calling Howard a troll and a retard just for posting an aricle is, in itself, being a troll. As for calling someone a "retard"- my daughter is retarded. She's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but she's smart enough to know (1) it applies to her and (b) it's an insult. Comparing you to her- you don't even rank.

So, if you disagree, bring facts or logic to the table, or preferably both.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 6:21 AM

LOGGERHEAD

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
If you are calling someone an idiot, be prepared to back it up. If not, the troll? It's you.

I'm sure that from Howard's local Starbucks Chavez looks like the slickest thing since Mao. However, he has neither the knowledge nor the experience necessary to debate the subject.

I was quite careful before I replied. I took the time to find and many of his posts for the past three weeks and stand by my position.

As to the troll statement . . . please.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 8:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm sure that from Howard's local Starbucks Chavez looks like the slickest thing since Mao. However, he has neither the knowledge nor the experience necessary to debate the subject.

I was quite careful before I replied. I took the time to find and many of his posts for the past three weeks and stand by my position.

Okay- sure you're from Venezuela, but specifically what experience and insight did you bring to the table? Why don't you tell us your obervations? That way, we can all benefit from your experience. Simply saying "He's an idiot" isn't a debate of any sort; it's just a ...er... carefully thought-out trollish response.

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:16 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by loggerhead:
I'm sure that from Howard's local Starbucks Chavez looks like the slickest thing since Mao. However, he has neither the knowledge nor the experience necessary to debate the subject.

As to the troll statement . . . please.

Then show us where it's wrong. I personally don't know shit about Venezuela or Hugo Chavez, and won't try to claim I do. So I get a posted article, which sounds fair enough, from Howard.

From you, all we get is "Howard's an idiot" and "you don't know, I do."

You aren't debating Howard, you're debating the article. You claim to have first-hand knowledge of Venezuela, so show some credibility and class. If you can't argue it, don't show up to the thread, call someone an idiot with no evidence, and run. There's no 'please' about it, that's trollish behavior.

7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:17 AM

EYETOOTH

I've obseverved this Howard character for some time, and have noted that he's hardly one to be civil towards those who disagree with him. I was aggressive because I could predict that any reasoned indictment of Chavez's policies would have been met with abuse.

I see Howard as a symptom of PC message board laxity. The more nitwitted far-right rants usually get deleted posthaste on any board, save for the places that cater to them; far-left antics on the other hand are widely tolerated. I see Howard's chest-thumping posts/cut-paste spams as just as worthless as your average OMG ZION/WAHABI/MUD bullshit. Granted some worthwhile discussion occasionally comes out of his threads, but damned if it doesn't have much to do with his initial intent. His arguments consistently have all the sophistication of "because I say so".

Perhaps my phlegm was a bit trollish (and needless - it's a message board after all), but I'm sick of bully-boy leftists being tolerated in otherwise civil environments, on the internet and off.

ps The article may be "fair minded" in that it questions wether Chavez is really radical enough for the sake of El Revaloosheown, but it's still obviously in the service of making him look good. Incidentally it reminds me of conservative profiles on Karl Rove.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:59 AM

CITIZEN

I agree to some extent with you eyetooth. I've been on the receiving end of Howards inabillity to accept differing view points.
However, the argument 'your an idiot' is one that will not be tolerated on these boards, no matter who it comes from.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 1:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Eyetooth- you're posts don't reach just Howard, they reach all of us. So leaving Howard out of the picture, can you tell the rest of us what your reasoning is?

Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 3:43 PM

EYETOOTH

I don't have any direct experience there. My brother lived in Caracas for a couple years in the mid-90's.

I have nasty feelings towards Chavez because he has

emasculated the judiciary; tried to place his legitimacy in plebiscites (a BAD sign, according to many historical precedents); created his own personal anti-poverty initiatives, heavily politicised and beholden to him; lent moral support to nasty rebel movements across Latin America (FARC in Columbia, for example); pissed away much of Venezuala's bumper oil revenues on harebrained foreign-policy schemes; and generally valued ideology and his personal power well before his ostensible goal, raising Venezualans out of poverty.

All these examples are taken from stories in the mainstream media (BBC, The Economist, NPR ect.) at various points throughout the past 7-8 years. I could dig up some links given a bit of trouble.

On top of this I simply find the man distasteful and a media whore, like subcommandante Marcos writ large. It annoys me to no end that he's taken seriously.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 4:24 PM

SEVENPERCENT

And had you said all that in your first post, Eyetooth, we could already have had a decent discussion instead of spending half the thread discussing thread ettiquette.

And I believe it was Signy (might have been Citizen) who said that you aren't just presenting to Howard, you are also presenting to the rest of us. I am in total agreement with him.

Instead of coloring our responses toward you, next time take the high road. If Howard wants to namecall and troll back, we'll get on him about it. But your first impression on these threads has made you look like a bad guy, when I'm sure you aren't.

Post some links next time. Counterpoint line by line if you have to. Some of us, like myself, start out having no opinion on the subject because we have no real knowledge of the subject. But coming off like an ass just makes it harder for us to take you seriously when you do, in fact, make a solid point.

Just sayin'.

7%

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 4:13 AM

LOGGERHEAD

Here's the hero of Venezuela in action.

The right to protest is key in the free world but, unfortunately, not in Venezuela. If you protest against Hugo Chavez you'll be killed or "detained" permanently. Hundreds have simply vanished. this is not opinion, it's documented fact:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530032004

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624

http://www.dj.com.ve/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=200530

That's what communists do. Any dissidence is met with violence. For comparison with a free society, see how Cindy Sheehan has the freedom to speak her piece and has even met with President Bush. In Venezuela, she would have disappeared quietly.

Why don't you hear about this in the Venezuelan media? Freedom of the press, right? Wrong. It's *illegal* to speak anything negative about Hugo Chavez. Not opinion, documented fact:

http://www.freemedia.at/r_wl_venezuela.htm

http://english.eluniversal.com/2005/10/15/en_pol_art_14A619921.shtml

http://hrw.org/press/2003/06/venezuela062303-ltr.htm

The Venezuelan people don't have the opportunity to hear the truth about Hugo Chavez because the media is subject to harassment, attack, or imprisonment (although the more likely scenario is that offending reporters will simply be "disappeared"). That's what communists do.

But Venezuela is a democracy, right? That's how it was formed decades ago, but now, not so much:

http://vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509152101

Want to work within the system to get this turkey ousted? You better not. These people are being prosecuted simply for encouraging people to vote in the referendum to get rid of Chavez:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm

Think you own your own personal property? Think again. Chavez can raise your taxes *retroactively* for years into the past, then take your property from you without notice. It's a Marxist dream, but a nightmare for anyone who loves freedom. Not opinion, fact:

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509130354

http://english.eluniversal.com/2005/10/15/en_eco_art_15A619909.shtml

So how is Chavez's government doing otherwise? Well, apparently totalitarianism does not equal competence:

http://www.rev.com.ve/ver/default.asp?caso=11&idrev=9&idsec=32&idedi=1
0&idart=103

The government is a disaster at all levels. The functions that it controls are implemented poorly. At least Perez Jimenez was a capable administrator. Chavez is not. He is a Castro lackey, who is using Venezuela's wealth to prop up his own failed country:

http://www.rev.com.ve/ver/default.asp?caso=10&idrev=9&idsec=34&idedi=1
0

So there is your hero. Why Venezuela has been singled out for this ignominy is beyond comprehension. This is not Iraq. We are in the western hemisphere and were once the pinnacle for freedom and democracy in Latin America. This is an indescribably beautiful country with an embarrassment of natural resources. Now it appears our destiny is to be the next Cuba, where repression and poverty are the daily life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 4:48 AM

EYETOOTH

Those are some damning links. Even people who are quite left-wing should realise that Chavez isn't much better than a reactionary dictator, and is much worse than the pre-1998 status quo. (One thing that bugs me - the pro-Chavez camp harps on about the weakness of the establishment-dominated Venezualian democracy before Chavez, the very democracy that allowed an anti-establishment insurrectionary to be elected.)

Of course no number of links to impartial sources convince the true believers, who are privy to mysterious "mountains of evidence" exculpating him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 4:23 PM

REMO

>>Venezuela's president is rarely seen by foreigners for what he is: one of the world's most popular and democratic politicians.>>

I couldn't read any further because that made me laugh so hard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 5:28 PM

DREAMTROVE

I don't really have the information that Loggerhead has on Chavez, but I'll give my gut feeling.

As I have posted a whole bunch of times, so everyone already knows how I feel about Chazvez. I have some reservations and somewhat of an open mind about him.

1. I don't think Socialist utopia is realistically possible. I think that there are a few instances like in Venezuela where it could work to some degree, simply because they are sitting on a tone of cash. It's like monarchy works in Kuwait, but not so much in Bhutan. Etc.

2. I think Chavez is basically a good guy, that's not the problem. I disagree with Condi and co. I think the tricky situation is that Chavez will set up a centrally controlled society that may run beautifully for decades, until he is deposed and replaced with as a**hole. Then everything will start to suck, like in Iraq.

3. I think that to ensure that this won't happen, which is in US interests to ensure that this won't happen (And I really don't agree with the article's position that the US is hell bent on dominating Latin America, I think that mostly the US doesn't care, but fears rogue states; and Chevron wants the oil) but to ensure that this scenario in 2. won't happen, we need to open a dialogue with Chavez about market reform.

4. I know this will be an anathema to him, but in order to have this, we need to set aside certain fears.

5. The US has to assure Venezuela that we, as a nation, nor our corporate interests, are interested in controlling Venezuelan commerce. I don't think at the moment that that statement is true, but we need to make it true, and then convince Chavez of that.

6. That an independent Venezuelan based free-market system is the best way to enact the solutions that he feels are needed.

7. While I disagree with Mr. Chavez on the simple 'goods and services should be apportioned equally' which I translate as 'people should be rewarded for having babies, but not for creating progress'; it is clear that in certain areas he may have a point.

8. If all of this can be worked out to this point, we can address which areas he may have a point in, and how those can be addressed in a free market system, and offer to help in those areas, in exchange for market reforms in his home country.

9. If we don't do this, we have a more immediate problem on our hands. Venezuela will make a roughly successful socialist state which will be very rich, because they will have lots of money, that they have so recently come into. This will convince everyone in poorer parts of latin america that socialism works. They won't make the connection, oh these guys just got control of the world's largest oil supply; they'll see the socialism. The will echo, and create disasters.

10. If we can show that a capitalist Venezuela is very successful and wealthy, more so than socialist venezuela, people will follow that model.

But most importantly, we must take Mr. Chavez seriously. I think he has some funny ideas, and I don't mean humorous, and a lot I don't agree with. He also has some I do agree with. But the main issue is the US has taken Saudi Arabia very seriously, maybe too seriously, but we haven't taken Venezuela seriously enough.

As a footnote, there are a number of stories that come in about environmental destruction and human rights violations towards the native populations in Venezuela, which also will need to be addressed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2005 5:55 PM

DREAMTROVE

Loggerhead,

Before I say anything else, you should know, you're talking to socialism worst enemy here, and I think everyone who frequents this forum can attest to that.

But I need to know what your angle is, if I'm to accept this at face value. I have no reason to think Chavez is evil. I have lots of problems with him sure, but his most bitter opponents seem to have an agenda.

In case you missed my whole "socialism is evil" rant, for which I got roundly bashed, just letting you know, I'm probably one of the most likely to be sympathetic to your argument. I believe the thread were the ones beginning "Post Serenity" and "Are collective efforts necessary?". But I need to know.

First off, you're username, Loggerhead, is unfortunate. Normally I wouldn't think so, but since Amazon logging in South America is having a profound effect on our whether here in the states, which has claimed 10,000 of thousands of lives, objectively, Amazon loggers are worse than Al Qaeda. I have no problem with carrying this to its logical conclusion with not even the slightest inclination to open a dialogue on the subject.

If this is your angle, the debate is already over before it's begun. Assuming that is not your angle, please let me know what it is.

I glanced through those links. Not a lot of sites I recognize, except Amnesty International, and Human Rights Warch.

News tends to appear in guardian.co.uk. Failing that. Well failing that nothing. I figure that's my #1 trusted source. Here are some other ones:

If it's in wikipedia it's so, more or less

So I'm first going to my primary secondary sources.

Wikipedia talks about some of this stuff. It's just castro level stuff. I mean I've pretty much taken him as a dictator, not a popular democratic leader. If he were that, I'd say just support a candidate against him. He's killed a few dozen opponents. Who hasn't these days? In the socialist world, anyways. I need a better argument than this.

There a difference of options here:

1. Chavez is suboptimal. I think most everyone would agree with this, I certainly would. A Socialist dictator is never my first choice.

2. Chavez must go. This is a much much stronger claim that would require serious evidence. This puts him on a line with Saddam Hussein. Remember the case Bush had to build against Hussein? Remember that at this point, Saddam Hussein had already killed a million people. And yet still it was necessary to build a case against him.

So what I'm saying is, you have campaign material here. Chavez doesn't get my vote. But Bush and Clinton have both rigged elections and murdered opponents. together they've killed over a million people.

You need to build your case here. Chavez never had my vote to begin with, and I don't vote in Venezuelan elections, and if I did, it wouldn't matter because it's rigged.

But you're not even close to a "Chavez must go."

But you have my attention. I'm all ears. So let's here the case.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE